Analysis Of Bulgakov's The Master And Margarita

Considered to be among the greatest novels of the 20th century, Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita is a timeless favorite, enjoyed and studied now as much as it was 50 years ago. The novel’s multiple interpretations and deep-seated nuances on behalf of the author have captured the attention of scholars and students alike. Among the main characters of the novel are Dr. Woland and his gang, who are representations of Satan or Satanic figures, and follows the mischief that they concoct around Moscow. Naturally, an inclusion of Satan as a main character who kills and seems hell-bent on driving people mad can appear pretty heretical from the outside, I could agree. But regarding the statement that “The Master and Margarita is the most heretical novel of the twentieth-century”, I would contend that claim and instead argue that the book celebrates spirituality and free-thinking, more specifically in the context of Christianity, because of the book’s status as a satire of an atheistic Russia and because Bulgakov doesn’t posit the book in an Anti-Christian sort of way.

One explanation of Bulgakov’s heresy in The Master and Margarita is that he chose Jesus’s Hebrew name, Yeshua Ha-Nostri, as the character of the Master’s novel instead of using Jesus Christ. This is allegedly done to focus on the humanity of Jesus, and disregard any sort of divine depiction of Jesus, possibly as part of a larger insult. I wholeheartedly disagree with this claim. An understanding of the context in which the book was written could help understand Bulgakov’s intentions in doing this. The book was written as a satire of the communist Russian regime and more broadly to satirize life in Russia under communist political and economic control during the fir...

... middle of paper ...

...s of actual historical events. But Bulgakov puts a great deal of time into retelling the trial of Jesus in a historically realistic way, and I think that speaks volumes of Bulgakov and his intentions. Would anyone who was a heretic spend time paging through the Bible and piecing together plausible events in order to construct a historical narrative? And instead of using important religious figures as plot devices in The Master and Margarita, Bulgakov instead implements fantasized, fictional, and even absurd elements and characters into the novel. While this could be deemed as a mockery or taken as an insult, I would rather chock it up to creative writing instead of a seething religious criticism. In summary, The Master and Margarita would appear more as an attempt by Bulgakov to sustain Christianity as a relevant part of our culture instead of a dis against it.